• HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

    From olcott@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jul 29 16:06:17 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 7/29/2021 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 7/29/2021 3:46 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
    On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
    olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:

    On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting >>>>>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of >>>>>> insight.

    Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
    erroneous.

    I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
    the key essence of support for the first sentence.
    This is a troll.

    /Flibble


    This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
    entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.

    Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
    atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can >>>> be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.

    This is a troll.

    I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
    Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
    watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
    example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
    do you tolerate him?

    I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
    language subject. At the very least you should make him define
    the mapping behind his "equivalence".

    But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
    way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
    H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
    decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
    definition of a Turing Machine.

     From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space, >> a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
    is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called
    Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet.
    There
    is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
    Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State
    Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
    triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
    and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
    the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.

    That's a bit  complicated. I hope I got it right.

    I could go on but nobody wants me to.


    I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
    A very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of

    simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey simplification:

    Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
    Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
    (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
    argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
    if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
    Consider the routine P defined as follows

    rec routine P
      §L:if T[P] go to L
        Return §

    If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
    only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
    exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
    that the function T cannot exist.

    Strachey, C 1965.  An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313

    // Strachey CPL translated to C
    void P()
    {
      if (H((u32)P))
        HERE: goto HERE;
    }





    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to dklei...@gmail.com on Thu Jul 29 16:04:44 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 7/29/2021 3:46 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
    On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
    olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:

    On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
    the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of >>>>> insight.

    Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
    erroneous.

    I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
    the key essence of support for the first sentence.
    This is a troll.

    /Flibble


    This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
    entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.

    Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
    atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
    be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.

    This is a troll.

    I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
    Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
    watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
    example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
    do you tolerate him?

    I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
    language subject. At the very least you should make him define
    the mapping behind his "equivalence".

    But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
    way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
    H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
    decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
    definition of a Turing Machine.

    From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space,
    a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
    is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet. There
    is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
    Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
    triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
    and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
    the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.

    That's a bit complicated. I hope I got it right.

    I could go on but nobody wants me to.


    I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
    simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
    simplification:

    Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
    Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
    (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
    argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
    if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
    Consider the routine P defined as follows

    rec routine P
    §L:if T[P] go to L
    Return §

    If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
    only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
    exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
    that the function T cannot exist.

    Strachey, C 1965. An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7,
    Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313

    // Strachey CPL translated to C
    void P()
    {
    if (H((u32)P))
    HERE: goto HERE;
    }



    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 29 16:28:17 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, comp.theory

    On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
    On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:

    I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
    simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was
    an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
    simplification:

    Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.

    André

    No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
    sums up the one by Turing:

    the proof ... is so short and simple that it
    may be of interest to casual readers. The version
    below uses CPL, but not in any essential way.

    Sir,
    A well-known piece of folk-lore among programmers
    holds that it is impossible to write a program which can
    examine any other program and tell, in every case, if it
    will terminate or get into a closed loop when it is run. I have never
    actually seen a proof of this in print, and
    though Alan Turing once gave me a verbal proof (in a
    railway carriage on the way to a Conference at the
    NPL in 1953), I unfortunately and promptly forgot the
    details. This left me with an uneasy feeling that the
    proof must be long or complicated, but in fact it is so
    short and simple that it may be of interest to casual
    readers. The version below uses CPL, but not in any
    essential way.


    Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
    Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
    (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
    argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
    if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
    Consider the routine P defined as follows

    rec routine P
       §L:if T[P] go to L
         Return §

    If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
    only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
    exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
    that the function T cannot exist.

    Strachey, C 1965.  An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume
    7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
    https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313

    // Strachey CPL translated to C
    void P()
    {
       if (H((u32)P))
         HERE: goto HERE;
    }







    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)